Monday, July 22, 2013

Despite differing perches along the political spectrum, in separate segments on the 8/29/11 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Juan Williams, Bernard Goldberg, and Kinky Friedman each made snide comments against candidates for the Presidency that did not embrace evolution as part of their respective individual worldviews.

Each of these spokesmen for the secularist perspective (though Williams made a fuss over his Episcopalianism which has been one of contemporary Christianity's most spineless forms) insinuated that one's position regarding origins somehow represents an intellectual deficiency if one does not enthusiastically embrace Darwinism. Perhaps we should take a moment to examine how this might impact a politician's political philosophy.

Often ultrasecularists assure we dimwitted rubes that religion has no bearing on the nuts and bolts issues voters really care about as the nation edges closer to financial ruination and social collapse. These days, one is as likely to hear this from certain varieties of grassroots conservatism as you are from ACLU types.

Even if evolution was true, what bearing does Rick Perry, Michelle Eichmann, or Sarah Patin believing the world was created six thousand years ago have on the proverbial price of tea in China? Given the worthlessness of the US dollar, such an example is no longer as merely rhetorical as it once was.

On the national level, it's not like a singular figure would be able to reverse the inertia of an entrenched technocratic bureaucracy steeped in scientism.

If a more creationist approach to science held sway in the jurisdictions where the aforementioned politicians enjoy a constituency, who are elites to criticize the prevailing conceptual framework?

After all, aren't these the same multiculturalists that dare anyone to criticize the adherents of a particular unmentioned religion who have a penchant for flying jetliners into skyscrapers and to strap sticks of dynamite to their chests.

Those thinking, to paraphrase Bernard Goldberg, that is is ignorant to believe that dinosaurs and human beings might have shared the earth at the same time apparently also believe that how the world came into existence impacts other areas of existence. That is a notion that they share with the Christian that actually just comes at the question from the opposite direction.

Since those wanting to shut God out or at least hold Him at bay in one's approach to one of life's most fundamental questions on what is constantly tauted as cable's most highly rated news program, perhaps we should examine these assumptions a little more closely.

Those holding to evolution believe everything is in a constant state of flux and change. There are no unaltering realities or lasting principles.

For example, Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion or speech, or the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Those might have been alright in the 1700's, but those provisions aren't meant for today since we have progressed so far beyond them, the evolutionary collectivist would argue.

Rights are not something we are endowed with by our Creator as individuals made in his image. Rather these protections are statutory provisions that can be extended and contracted for the benefit of the elite ruling any given society.

The contrasting perspective holds that every detail in the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis are to be taken literally. Such an assumption produces a number of worldview implications.

For example, the theist holding to the Genesis account generally believes that the individual is created in the image of God. This doctrine is taught in Genesis 1:26.

As such, the individual possesses an innate dignity and worth. The person is not some random conglomeration of cells to be manipulated, reconfigured, and even obliterated for no valid reason. Thus, those principles viewed as outdated and obsolete are often the only things that prevent us from being obliterated by those so deluded that they can remake the entire world in their own warped image.

In a radio interview, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg dropped a comment providing a degree of insight into his warped perspective.

Regarding a potential loophole in proposed gun control legislation that would overlook the sale of a firearm within a family, Bloomberg said, "I would argue if you want to sell your gun to your son, maybe you have a problem in your family. Why don't you just give --- I don't know if you should have a gun or not, but if you have a commercial transaction of $100 with your son, there is something wrong in your family."

This is coming from an elected official so deluded in his own thinking to conclude that it is the place of government to tell you how much salt you can put on your food, what size soda you should be allowed to purchase, or even how much pain medication you should be allowed to have in the hospital.

Perhaps some parents believe requiring a child to purchase an heirloom firearm symbolically invests its transfer with a sense of responsibility.

Extrapolating a generalized principle from Bloomberg's musing, ought it to be frowned upon for parents to receive financial reimbursement should parents decide to grant titles of family dwellings and automobiles to their own children?

If there is one thing that liberals hate as much (maybe even more) than mere commoners defending themselves is daring to conduct an economic transaction that the government might not be able to seize a portion of.

Since there are certain Biblical passages that do not allow for female clergy, a number of hardcore legalists also insist that the doctrine forbids women from holding elected political office.

The logic behind such a position contends that there is no distinction between what contemporary society views as secular and sacred authority.

Thus, it is immoral for a man to submit to a woman in either cultural sphere.

If we are obligated to be this rigorous in our religious thinking, there are other applications of this principle that you are required to implement if you are insisting that you are only striving for consistency in these matters.

Foremost, to say that one is under such and such pastor or minister is to say that one regularly subjects oneself to their teaching.

A book is nothing more than an extended lecture or sermon committed to print.

Thus, shouldn't those wanting to present for public display as evidence of their piety how enthusiastically they adhere to the admonitions of Scripture refuse to set their eyes upon any text composed by a woman?

The aspiring canonists advocating for the extremeism of their initial hypothesis will no doubt try to wiggle out of this corner by saying at most such an interpretation would only apply to doctrinal expositions or monographs.

But if we are operating from the principle that all authority is sacred authority, then why does one suddenly attempt to hide behind the distinction between secular knowledge and sacred knowledge in the area of epistemology?

Next, if one holds to the position that women should be forbidden from holding elected office because such would violate Biblical prohibitions against women exercising spiritual authority over men, on what grounds does the person advocating such a perspective then work for a corporation that allows for female managers, supervisors, and executives?

For if the political realm is to be viewed as another sphere of ministry, on what grounds does one then say that economics and business are separate and distinct from the spiritual?

And most importantly, isn't the person that is employed in such an organization adamant about female exclusion from public life guilty of possessing the same kind of dead faith they are extremely eager of insinuating and accusing so many other Christians around them of suffering from?

The Lone Ranger as a film is not as bad as it's made out to be by the critics.

However, it is somewhat saddening that in many remakes beloved classic pulp culture characters are held up to ridicule.

As much as liberals complain how Indians such as Tonto were depicted decades ago, this Johnny Depp interpretation exhibited none of the dignity of the original.

Neither did the Ranger exhibit the intelligence and courage that place him in the same league of other great heros such as Superman.

Though not as bad as the Green Hornet a few years ago, before adding unnessary profanity to a screenplay about an American icon, perhaps Disney should stop and consider how it would like such earthy dialogue flying out of the mouth of Mickey Mouse or any character he is interacting with.

At one time, Disney did not want Annete Funicello wearing a two piece bathingsuit on screen.

It's doubtful he'd approve of a film with his brand attached depicting urine flowing into a bucket or someone's head deliberately being dragged through a pile of horse turds.

The Hunger Games ranks among one of the top grossing movies of the past several years. Obviously, something about the film has captured the imagination and interest of a wide range of people and viewpoints.

This includes segments of the Evangelical Christian population as well. One might assume adherents of this particular belief system might be concerned about the violence and language that would seem to be inherent to a tale about teens forced to battle to the death in a form of televised postmodern gladiatorial combat.

Even if details in the story cross the line in terms of propriety, one would think there would be a number of elements within the overriding theme that the believer could find agreement.

A great deal of the saga focuses on how, as the West slides deeper into social decay, conditions revert back to the waning days of Rome. However, the issues raised by homeschool activist Kevin Swanson are in a sense even more shocking than the homicidal lotteries featured in the story.

In a sermon addressing “The Hunger Games”, Swanson focused in on a scene where one contestant plotted to eliminate a fellow competitor while they slept. To determine whether such an action was right or wrong, Swanson consulted the account in I Samuel 24 where David could have slain Saul but did not do so while the king slept because, at that point in the narrative, Saul was still the Lord's anointed King of Israel.

Instead of explicating both the Old Testament account and “The Hunger Games” as an example of where the Commandment against murder might apply, it seemed as if Swanson elevated the actions of David themselves to the status of an absolute applicable in all situations just because it was David.

Let's just hope Swanson doesn't look to what David had done to Uriah as an example of what a man should do when he desires an unattainable woman. So from the story of of Abigail's first husband, should one take away that we should threaten to whack those that diss us (to place the story in the terms of the urban vernacular of those likely on public assistance)?

Yet this is not the most controversial component of Kevin Swanson's thesis. It's not too ludicrous to hypothesize it's not very courageous to slay your enemies while they slept.
Swanson conjectures that, since David would not kill King Saul in the monarch's sleep since God had unequivocally selected Saul to be King of Israel at that specific time, the Christian is obligated to allow the operatives of an out of control government to take the lives of Americans without due process or valid cause under the universal precepts of natural law.

If exegetes arguing this position couple this notion with obeying civil authoroties in all instances, where does that end? If during the ambush police, intelligence operatives, or military personnel decide to have their way with the daughters of the proper pliant Christian, would they condemn those resisting such defilement? If not, then why must citizens passively surrender their lives and their property when their other protections from the Decalogue are wantonly violated?

Enthusiasts of unbridled power will remark that such a scenario is unlikely to ever take place. But what of the incident where New York police were alleged to have shoved a plunger up a suspect's backside? If the government is doing such things, is the proper Christian response suppose to be “Please, sir, may I have another?”

In the years ahead, Christians will be required to make ethical decisions of nuanced gradation as the institutions founded from on high to defend the innocent abandon their intended purpose to rank among the foremost of dangers. Narratives such as The Hunger Games, even if Christians cannot endorse them on every point, can assist believers in reflecting upon contingencies beyond the parameters of their normal experience.

Baptist Pastor James Cooley has posted a homily at SermonAudio.com condemning the use of the latest Superman film as an apologetic outreach.

This pastor contends that the true Christian ought to avoid the film all togeher since the symbols and motifs utilized in the story could be coopted by the Son of Perdition to delude the unsuspecting into accepting the End Times 'deceiver as the Son of God.

But the question must be asked, how does this pastor know so much about the movie if he is not simply suggesting discernment should one decide to view the film but that the film be avoided altogether?

By bringing up a topicthat does not appear blatantly wicked on the surface, doesn't a pastor worthy of the respect and pay as such have to encourage those in his congregation to be like the Bereans and to then investigate the claims on their own which might entail actually watching the film to determine for themselves whether the conclusions made by the minister are valid or not?

How does Superman not live up to Christian values if we take the narrative at face value?
He doesn't make the world bow at his feet demanding worship, he renders his services for free, and for decades let the woman he's attracted to treat him like dirt before she realized who he was.

Doesn't Zod serve as evidence of what Superman would be like if he was not a highly moral individual?

The arguments against comic books and fantasy films spouted from the pulpits of the extremes of fundamentalist Christianity only decline in lucidity from that particular logical plateau.

Pastor James Cooley condemned Batman as a humanist for relying primarily upon his mind to solve crimes.

So I guess we should wait idly by for all of life's problems to miraciously resolve themselves with no effort on our part?

Another pastor condemning the conceptual construct of the superhero narrative said that God has called us to “kingdom work” and not fighting aliens.

But we may be on the cusp of a time when those missions are about to overlap.

A pastor opposed to superhero stories and comic books insisted that such narratives were wicked because intrinsic to the structure was an attempt to save the world.

So by that standard, it would be immoral to write a novel about the military especially during a conflict like World War II?

Pastor James Cooley, in a sermon titled “Super Heroes Replace Christ” said, “JRR Tolkien was a lost Catholic that went to hell, amen.”

Indeed Tolkien did if he did not rely soley on Christ to save him from his sins
But so does the confused Baptist that thinks adhering to all of the Baptist peculiarities (including avoiding comic books and fantasy movies) are necessary to attest to the authenticity of one's faith.

In a sermon condemning superhero entertainment, a legalist complained that you can't have a decent understandable conversation with someone that watches movies and plays video games.

Now the legalist knows how the rest of us feel in dealing with someone whose faith doesn't simply inform or influence what they say and do but is the only thing they can obsessively talk about.

Thursday, July 04, 2013

The rate of technological and cultural change is so fast and comprehensive in these days in which we live that futurist Alvin Toffler has likened the phenomena to waves sweeping over society and labeled the feeling of disoriented perplexity that settles over us in the wake as "Future Shock". Many of these changes appear to be so profound that the pressure to abandon traditional values and beliefs from academia, media, government, and even certain factions within organized religion can feel overwhelming. However, there is more at stake than whether we send letters to acquaintances via the post office or through the computer electronically. Rather, such radical shifts of the paradigms through which we sift reality and experience will ultimately impact how we see ourselves and how we value other human beings.

With the technical complexity inherent to many of the latest developments in the fields of biology and medicine, it is easy to fall for the assumption that ethics and morality in these disciplines would better be left to the highly educated such as scientists or philosophy professors. The field of bioethics is a relatively new area of study in comparison to the totality of human knowledge. Because of its frontier nature as ethically uncharted territory, it is a discipline in desperate need of a solid Christian presence as it is pretty much a wide open field in which the ambitious and enthusiastic can plant their flag in the hopes of persuading the masses as to the propriety of a respective position.

As Christians, it is the fundamental assumption of the believer that all truth is derived from God as revealed to us either directly from His word (the Bible), deduced from reflection upon His word, or discernable from His creation construed in the light of His word. II Timothy 3:16-17 says, "All scripture is given inspired of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Likewise, Psalm 19:1 says, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the works of his hands (NIV)."

Since this is the case, God's law is written across the whole of creation. Try as men might to ignore or escape these binding commandments, they ultimately cannot and are seared by their own consciences as evidenced by the responses that often border on violence as typified by homosexual militants reacting whenever someone responds with anything less than a standing ovation or lavish government subsidies for this particular lifestyle. Romans 2:14-15 says, "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.”

Though the Bible might not address specific bioethical issues directly by name such as stem cells and cloning, a number of the Good Book's foremost passages and doctrines serve as the foundation to a Christian response to these kinds of challenges arising in the world today. As the basis to all divine law contained within both the Old and New Testaments, the Ten Commandments serve as the guiding principles for all healthy relationships with both God and man. Prominent among these is the injunction "Thou shalt not murder."

This admonition was not handed down arbitrarily just so God could laud his authority and power over us. Rather, this commandment was set in place as recognition of man's unique status as a creature made in the image of God. Genesis 1:26-27 says, "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image'...So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." This image of God in each individual is so sacred that no individual should be able to take the life of another without serious consequences. Genesis 9:6 warns, "Whoever sheds the blood of man; by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."

Thus, the fundamental consideration in regards to these complex issues arising as a result of advances in biotechnology is that of personhood. As these scientific developments promise more and more of the things we as human beings crave the most in our earthly lives such as freedom from disease, prolonged life, or even enhanced abilities and children designed to our specifications, it becomes easier and easier to view other human beings as a means to achieve these goals for ourselves rather than as those whose lives we would like to see improved.

For while all of the issues raised in a cursory bioethics survey start off with noble-sounding justifications, when we look behind the lofty pronouncements, many of us would be shocked by the staggering numbers of bodies concealed behind the curtain. Perhaps one of the first bioethics debates to grip the public consciousness was no doubt abortion.

Those opposed to the practice argued that the procedure so dehumanized the unborn that the utilitarian allure of convenience would prove so seductive that the value would be invoked to justify the disposal of other members of the human family not measuring up to some arbitrary standard of productivity or quality of life. Since the time of its legalization, abortion has continued to divide the American electorate. This barbaric practice has been joined by a plethora of additional bioethical conundrums and outrages.

If anything, the potential of human cloning and the use of stem cells harvested from either fetuses falling victim to the abortionists knife or embryos purposefully formed in a laboratory to destroy in order to collect these genetic components garner even more headlines. At the other end of the spectrum of life, physicians are intervening to end the lives of those deemed a waste of recourses such as in the case of Terri Schiavo. This woman would have undoubtedly remained alive if she had not been denied basic nutrition and hydration, actions that could cause considerable legal trouble with the likes of PETA or the Humane Society should you decide to inflict such appalling mistreatment upon the family dog.

Even though the strongest and most direct moral case is the one that boldly stands upon the Word of God as its ultimate foundation, Western culture has become so "de-theized" (the very thing that causes human life to be devalued in the first place) that if one does not introduce these theories and concepts surreptitiously at first, one may find oneself excluded from the public policy debates where these kinds of decisions are made. In “Moral Choices: An Introduction To Ethics”, Scott Rae provides a framework through which the believer can introduce Biblical principles into these debates without initially coming across like some kind of “religious lunatic”. In today’s philosophical climate, all it takes to get that slur hurled at you is to question the prudence or propriety of the increasingly popular urge to copulate with anything that moves (or even with that which doesn’t according to the necrophiliacs who, if you search hard enough, probably endow a professorship at some prestigious university or a public interest lobbying group at some swanky office building not far from Capitol Hill).

A professor of Biblical Studies and Christian Ethics at the Talbot School of Theology, Rae shows that all truth is God’s truth and how the best philosophical thinking reflects this foundation. These seemingly disparate approaches to knowledge (faith and reason) find a connection through natural law. This approach to jurisprudence and ethics holds that there are certain principles binding upon all people with slight variations that produce the kinds of circumstances under which human beings thrive. These include the universality of heterosexual marriage, respect for private property, and prohibitions against murder.

“Moral Choices: An Introduction To Ethics” equips the reader to ferret out the hidden moral assumptions of those opposed to the Judeo-Christian approach to these issues. A number of the alternative ethical systems explored include utilitarianism (the right option is that producing the greatest good for the greatest number), ethical egoism (the morality of an act is determined by one’s self-interest), emotivism (morality is merely an enunciation of the inner feelings of an individual making an ethical pronouncement), and relativism (right and wrong change depending upon the context of a particular situation with there being no eternal absolute). It is emphasized that the advocates of these positions cannot accuse the Christian believer of bias and not being objective unless nontheists want to shoot themselves in the foot as well.

“Moral Choices: An Introduction To Ethics” provides the student with a multi-step framework of analysis that will assist the individual in weeding through complex issues that they may initially find intimidating and beyond their expertise but which can be more easily comprehended once boiled down to their constituent parts (105-107). These steps are listed as follows: (1) Gather the facts (one should obtain as much information about a specific case as possible). (2) Determine the ethical issues (these can be stated in the form of the conflicting claims at stake). (3) What principles have a bearing on the case (these are the principles at the heart of each competing position)? (4) List the alternatives (these consist of possible solutions to the moral dilemma). (5) Compare the alternatives with the principles (in this step one eliminates the possible solutions by determining their moral superiority or propriety). (6) Consider the consequences (in this step, one contemplates the implications of the alternatives). (7) Make a decision after analyzing and contemplating the information.

While this is important information, none of it will do any good unless Christians and those troubled by the disregard for human life sweeping across the culture get their message out to the wider public. Most will assume that as common everyday people not holding positions of influence in either academia, the medical profession, or within the formal ecclesiastical structure of the organized church that there is little that they can do to assist in this daunting struggle. However, with the advent of certain technologies as revolutionary to the realm of communications as the breakthroughs in genetic manipulation are to the field of biology, their voices can reach farther than they might initially imagine.

With technologies such as blogging and social media, independent voices laboring on their own (often derided by critics as geeks in pajamas) have coalesced into a source of opinion and information that in certain respects is coming to challenge the predominance of the mainstream media. Therefore, Christians can very easily use the new media to get their position out to the public regarding a wide range of bioethical issues.

Fundamental to the Christian understanding of the discipline is the pivotal role personhood plays regarding many of the issues at the forefront of bioethics. However, a number of voices within the Transhumanist movement (the ideology that humans should incorporate into their bodies mechanical or genetic enhancements so that the species might move beyond the the limitations inherent to our own nature) believe the definition of personhood should move beyond run of the mill human beings to include cyborgs, androids, and genetically engineered human/animal hybrids.

One doesn't have to be an expert in robotics or genetics to warn of the human rights horrors that would likely result should such a line of research be allowed to advance too far beyond the stages of theoretical speculation. One merely need to have seen a few of the Borg episodes of Star Trek and point out what this kind of tinkering backed by a communistic outlook leads to.

The future is there for those that want it the most. It will either go to those that believe that the masses exist for the benefit of the elite as the push onward towards their New World Order. Or, it will go towards those that view each individual as being created in the image of God, existing within a framework of divine laws that allow the individual to live life to its fullest while protecting each of us from the dangers on the prowl in a fallen world.

Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley held a “Governor For The Day Essay Contest”.

The purpose of the competition was aimed at encouraging young women between the ages of 8-12 to pursue careers in public service in honor of International Women’s Day.

Would the state sponsor such a celebration targeting young men?

Could such an initiative calling for Whites only have been announced without riots breaking out in the street?

On what grounds now do we have to be sympathetic should the Maryland governor drone on about the days of “Irish Need Not Apply” when he auditions to be Obama’s replacement in the next election?

Given that the opportunities of ALL children will likely be restricted and curtailed in the future by an increasingly intrusive government, why shouldn’t all students be allowed to participate irrespective of how the shudders are painted or the plumbing hooked up?